Another Take on Lost Channels
 

In what could be a new era of TV, and whilst we all discuss the impact of losing Sky One, News, Sport News, etc. here's another view.
This came from my wife this morning who grew up in Canada.
"I'm not bothered about losing the SKY channels, it's paying that BBC licence fee that winds me up, we never watch BBC."
And I had to agree with her, it was different as we grew up and BBC dominated the TV, you felt like you were getting something for your money but times have changed. I don't watch there channels anymore now that I have alternatives and so I don't feel I should pay them anything!

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

:welcome: 1st of all Tailor, but if say we lose the BBC License fee, where would you get your Topgear, Waking the Dead, Rome (as that was part beeb dosh) erm www.bbc.co.uk erm you name what program that is repeated on all other channels really.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

:Yikes:

Run for the hills!!!! It's another licence fee thread!!!!!!!!!



























Why won't it ever stop?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

amen Nugs :)

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Wouldn't miss any of them programs as I've never watched them.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Well I do watch Top Gear but not on BBC 2, I watch them on one of the UKTV channels. Surely UKTV have to pay the BBC for them, sounds like they're getting their money from my licence fee and from UKTV who fund it with adverts.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

As far as I know UKTV is a BBC spinoff.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I dont agree with the tv lience, but you find more and more stuff that it does pay for.

Radio channels, TV channels, Top Gear, Dr Who and many other things.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

It's fine to say you watch some of their programs but if they abolished the fee tomorrow and instead offered their channels for £11 per month would you pay it ?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Leave the BBC license fee alone. I would happily pay the fee just to watch documentaries without adverts killing the flow of the story. It would turn the BBC into the Discovery Channel where the programs are packaged into 10 minutes stand alone segments with repetition of the main points after each commercial break. It seems to me that each hour has around thirty minutes of actual program, it becomes unwatchable.

DW

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

The licence fee is what.. ten times what Sky wanted for their basic channels?

It would be nice to pay for the channels and programmes you actually want. I object to paying for rubbish like EastEnders, for example. At least with the BBC you can get VOD for free and good things like the BBC News website.

My two cents worth.. the BBC should be a public service broadcaster first and foremost and not be in the business of relentlessly pursuing market share.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

In my opinion the rules should be changed any person paying for a digital provider (not freeview) but virgin media, top up, sky should have a 50% reduction to BBC. Afterall you are already paying for programmes. This would be like an addon to the costs by the government and paid with your service.

No more licence would be required by any individual, the beeb would get some money and the rest would be to keep the government happy. Afterall the beeb already get advertising share from there digital channels. The get subscription subs for those part owned channels. Why should we pay twice for do what the government is asking us to do to free up analogue.

In time it should be completely faised out to all who pay a provider.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

BBC programmes are free-to-air; it is not part of the cost you pay for Cable or Sky, so you are not "paying twice".

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I think you missed the point you are paying twice for your television enjoyment. The beeb only get a proportion of the licence fee its called a license its not soley to pay for beeb programming. The government get is cake and try using tv's without one you will get fined. So its nothing to do with what is provided by the beeb. Now when you also pay for tv via a provider you are then paying twice. As most content ends up on retro channels like uk gold in some ways you proportionally pay a small fee for them made too. The beeb end up get a small proportion of subscriber fees and any advertising revenue to subliment the lisence. You also wonder how much the beeb got out of freeview box sales and impending freesat.

You realise for doing what the government requested you are not getting an incentive. Its about time we got a significant reduction to the licence.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

You 'pay twice' because you have chosen to get digital television - I know that I bang on about this every time this comes up but, if you feel that you shouldn't have to pay additional costs for the TV you watch, just stick with terrestrial TV :shrug:

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Sorry but why should I go back to a medium which absolutely infuriated with terrestial insistence that every person loves soaps. I worked it out at one point 50 hours of soaps was transmitted a week. If they missed the pap it got repeated for several times and had a big sunday catch up. Not forget the saturation of reality pap like get me out here, idol etc. Once in a blue moon there is a decent film/prog but in general terms its pap.

The problem lies is the way the beeb treat the licence as bottomless pit. I would think it not far down the line the average tv monthly bill will be £200. The result many will pushed out from enjoying watching tv. When Tv first came out only the rich could afford such luxuries. Its getting to a point it will once again be a rich mans toy.

Its in the beebs best interest long term to accept licence fee is bordering to point people cannot afford it.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Nobody's saying that you should be go back to something that 'infuriated' you. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't complain about a system that you have chosen to 'buy into' - if you don't want to pay over and above the licence fee for TV, you don't have to. Anyway, as has been repeated ad nauseum, the licence fee also pays for the radio and internet services (amongst others), so it's not actually a massive fee when you take it all into account...

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I not thinking it should be scraped but I just the if the government want us all off analogue they need to start giving back something in return for you doing so. Otherwise they will struggle to get everybody off analogue. I know friends and family who don't have any digital service at all. Refuse to budge stating why should they move. Its these people who the covernment going to have a hard time to convert.

What was the figure the beeb wanted.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

99% of the fee is TV and Radio, if I don't watch it, why should i pay for it.
This is from the Beebs website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/images/145licence_fee.gif

• Television (eight network channels) (£6.04)
• Nations and English regions television and local radio (£1.72)
• BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 and Five Live (ten analogue and digital stations)(£1.12)
• Transmission and collection costs (£1.08)
• New media (36p)
• BBC jam (14p)
• Interactive TV (BBCi) (8p)

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

thanks for that very interesting to see breakdown costs. I know the Beeb tried to fund its digital via licence not sure if they were given government permission. Which I find the suggestion that we all should pay for there venture into freesat wrong.

It should be totally self invested from the sales of the system.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Regardless of whether or not the BBC provides good quality TV/radio that are worth the licence fee, the simple fact remains that we should be given a choice as to whether or not we want to watch/listen to these, not forced to do so just so we can have the legal right to own a TV.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I don't see the topic as whether the content is worth the money but rather whether or not it should be compulsary to pay for the content. I paid for Sky Movies for a few months but found that the movies are repeated every night for weeks on end so I stopped paying for them. I'd like the same choice on the BBC's TV and Radio.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

My biggest gripe is being told that I am not allowed to own a TV unless I subscribe to the BBC i.e. give license fee.


This may have been fine in the days when it was only the BBC that was broadcasting, but this archaic law should not apply anymore.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Can't you see the inherent contradiction in what you're saying? First you moan that you would prefer it if your licence fee was paying for things you actually want. Then you moan that the BBC is pursuing market share.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't by your book. Do you want them to pursue your share of the market by making stuff you want to watch or not?

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

You misunderstand the whole concept of public service broadcasting. It's not surprising, as subscription based TV has become the norm in the UK, for the whole licence fee debate to become muddled up with whether it's fair to force people to pay for services they don't want, but the licence fee is not a subscription, it's a licence, just like the tax disc on your windscreen that entitles you to drive your car regardless of how many miles you drive, at what time of day, by whatever road, whatever the popularity of that road.

Except, of course, suggest replacing the current motoring taxation regime with a system of pricing based on use, and all hell breaks loose ... ;) Not that I'm prejudging any opinion you might have on road pricing, but hopefully you get my point.

The Licence Fee supports the existence of the BBC in order to allow the BBC to ensure a consistent, high level of TV and radio broadcasting in the UK. They effectively set a bar which the commercial channels have then to aim at, rather than descending to the level of appalling trash.

Anyone who is in any doubt about what a totally commercial TV environment is like should go and spend a while in the USA. TV there is acres upon acres of utter dross with the occasional gem if you look hard enough. It's easy to think the US must be full of top quality stuff because over here we get a distillation of the best of it, but the truth is something else.

Even if you never watch a single BBC programme, view a single BBC webpage or listen to a minute of BBC radio (I have seen people on this forum who claim this, by the way, and I am shall we say extremely skeptical about how likely that is), the quality of the UK-produced content you do consume has been influenced by the presence of the BBC in the market. And that, IMO, is well worth paying £2.50 a week for.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I don't see that you can compare a road tax licence to a TV licence.
Monies generated by road tax licences goes to the upkeep of the roads whereas the licence fee funds the BBC's programs. If the TV licence fee in someway maintained the transmission equipment that my TV utilised then it would be comparable but it doesn't. You could argue it did that very thing years ago but times have changed.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

good post Chris T.

The only issue I have is I think if you pay a digital provider for you TV then the government must give a reduction as an incentive to go digital.

I think there going to be huge issue with this as the big switch off nears.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I don't see that analogy as being a very good one to be honest.


A tax disc allows you to drive on all UK roads and the money is used to fund construction/maintenance of all UK roads. The license fee money is for the BBC only, not all channels.


The BBC equivalent of the tax disc would be one that only allowed you to drive on all the motorways but none of the A or B roads.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

The comparison was to show the difference between a service-based subscription (which the licence fee is not, regardless of how many people complain about paying dor something they 'don't use') and a flat fee regardless of usage, which the licence fee, and the Road Fund Licence, are.

However, seeing as you mention it, the BBC is spending your licence fee on a transmitter network that benefits more than just BBC programming - it's called Freeview.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------

So you would be in favour of a TV licence if the money raised by it was used to pay for public service broadcasting requirements on, say, ITV and Channel 5 as well, rather than exclusively on the BBC?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

If only the quality argument actually held water, 99% of terrestrial broadcast programmes are now reality based mind numbing bollix of the lowest quality & aimed directly at those of limited intelligence who actually think they're getting value for money.

What the BBC need to do is scrap the license fee & make their channels subscription based like everyone else, then we'll see how many people actually want to watch them.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

rename them BBC 1 Eastenders.

ITV coronation street

They are just so heavily soaped.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

If you only watch DVD's on your telly then you don't need a TV Licence. However if you only watch Cable TV then you do need one.
This shows that if I am to watch any broadcasted TV then I must also pay the BBC for theirs whether I want it or not. This was acceptable to me in the 70's when TV was provided to all via an aerial and the majority of TV was provided by the BBC but times have changed and this is no longer the case.

Incendently Chris you're not so much responding to the topic but rather ripping other peoples responses, there's a difference!

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

No.

ITV is for people who have lost the will to live and Channel 5 is a painful repressed memory that I wished that you hadn't brought up (in my world it doesn't exist).

Extra funding for Channel 4 would be nice though, although Channel 4 manages to create quality output and still be completely self sufficient.

Point is, we should have a choice as to what we want to watch and therefore pay for. Not have some license fee foisted onto us, simply because 'that's the way it's always been'.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

This might be a stupid question but does VirgiNTL pay the BBC for the channels they provide? if so why should I have to pay twice?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I think you can't have read my previous posts. The licence fee doesn't exist simply because it always has. The BBC's charter, and therefore the licence fee, is subject to renewal by Parliament every 10 years or so. Each renewal follows a detailed analysis of whether the British TV industry still has a place for public service broadcasting finded by compulsory levy. So far, the answer has always been 'it still does', not 'it always has'.

You are also ignoring the point that the licence fee is not a subscription. If you genuinely want to argue a case for its abolition, you are going to have to make a case against what it actually is, and what it actually stands for, and not simply rail against a straw man of your own invention. It's easy to knock down your own parody of something but ultimately it's not going to get you anywhere, and in this case it's not going to save you your £2.50.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

No they don't.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

not quite true if your house has any tuner which recieves a signal you must have a licence if you use it or not. They cannot force you to have one if you have a computer monitor linked to a dvd player and watch only movies. You will not need a licence. However then if you have any radio's you need a radio licence. Guess what conspiracy is they don't exist anymore. Black & white licences don't exist as an alternative. So guess what you will still need a colour licence if we only have a radio. whether you could argue you should get a blind discount.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

As I posted above in response to AJ, the BBC is not a subscription broadcaster and the licence fee is not a subscription. If you want to mount an effective challenge to it, you have to argue against what it actually is, not the way you would like to caricature it.

Hardly 'ripping' .... but if you aren't prepared to have someone disagree with you, and say so, then might I suggest a discussion forum is a dangerous place for you to be!

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

They may have changed, I looked that one up from the BBC website before stating it...

What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?

You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one our Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I agree, it's obviously not a subscription, because by definition a subscription is "a payment for a service or product for a given period of time". This is clearly not the case with the BBC licence fee, as it is mandatory by law and cannot be cancelled at any time (unless you give up your TV).

Back when the BBC was the only broadcasting corporation, and TV advertising money was an alien concept, then I could see how a compulsory licence fee was justified (people obviously have to pay for entertainment). This is not the case in a modern media society, where the consumer has many choices as to what he or she watches. Why should they be bound by law to fund a corporation which they may never use?

Your argument about the BBC setting a benchmark and how that in itself justifies the licence fee is ridiculous. The level of competition should drive the various media outlets to step up their quality of product, so that we 'choose' to spend our money to watch them. But the BBC is lazy and doesn't want to have to compete, they just want their guaranteed regular pot of money.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I am challenging whether there is a need anymore.
Like you stated in a previous post, it is reviewed every decade by government. I think it's time for a change and they should become a subscription service

Well actually you had left me alone at that point but I see I am getting it now as well ...lol

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Just a couple of brief thoughts .....

1. I never said that setting standards 'in itself' justified the licence fee. It is part of the equation but not all of it. Clearly it's not all of it as the Charter process is a very lengthy and detailed one.

2. The BBC (or some people within it at any rate) might well be lazy and enjoying a gravy train, but the BBC doesn't award itself its Charter and it doesn't set the level of the licence fee. Parliament does.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I wonder how many they have agreed don't need a licence. thanks for the find though. Seems a very small carrot.

Just worried about news breaking about petrol. My car been juddering for 2 days. I am in Grimsby and bought the petrol a week ago.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I'd be very surprised if the government is completely objective when it comes to reviewing the need for the BBC licence fee.

With such an age old institution as the BBC, and the fact that the BBC is well revered around the world, the corporation itself has now become a national icon of pride (we're the best in the world etc). Of course the government is going to keep its funding in place. Or maybe I'm being cynical.

Actually, when I think about it, the BBC is like the queen, except I have at least been entertained by and enjoyed watching the BBC at some point in my life.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Well, taking this into account, surely you're paying twice for the roads then, seeing as Council Tax goes towards the roads as well :shrug:

---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------

But there's already a huge incentive to go digital - if you don't, you won't have access to TV after the analogue switch-off...

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I'm not going to reply to that on the grounds that it would be sooooo far off-topic I'd expect to get a lifetime ban ;)

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I wouldn't worry about it - I never have :D

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

For some people, the punishment is a lifetime membership - you can never leave. :batty:

Mwuhahahahahahahaaaaaah

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Which is weird, 'cos we all know that you lot suffer more than I do :D

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Does anyone really know what the council tax actually pays for?


According to the council websites it gets used to fund community services like libraries, but there hasn't been a book worth stealing in my local library for ages now. :mad:

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Hi..
not too sure if you are intrested, but i did as the TV licence Authority about paying for licence after the DTTV switch over

My question was..
Their answer is
i hope that can help with any licence questions .. However they did take a week to answer as they did not know how to answer my question at first thats what the lady said, when i called them.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I am a long time disgruntled payer of the unfair, biased and quite frankly appaulling attitude of the BBC and thier 'licence'.

You know YOU have to prove to THEM that your not using your TV to recieve broadcasted channels?
If you murder someone THEY have to prove that YOU committed the murder.

You HAVE to let them into your own home so they can see for themselves that you are not using a TV to recieve broadcasted channels.

If you refuse they call the police who then MAKE you let them into your home to prove that you are not using a TV to recieve broadcasted channels.

This attitude they have is appauling, i remember 3 years ago seeing an advert on the side of a bus in Doncaster, it said '3 people living on burton road do not own a TV licence'.

And Chris T, i 'dont use' your car, should i have to pay for it?

The BBC do not provide ANY content that interests me, NONE! You say they have set the standard? reeeallly? thats because they were the only ones setting any standard when the draconian licence fee was introduced.

In a recent BBC poll (yes thats right a poll by the BBC) to find out how many licence fee payers would continue to pay for the licence if it was based upon a subscription, the result was 65% would still pay the fee, that 35% of almost this entire country that do not want the BBC service.

The BBC is on borrowed time, my generation have grown up with the era of commercial TV, now ondemand is getting more popular, websites like youtube.com and other similiar providers are becoming more popular through convenience and instant choice, soon my generation will be in charge of things at the top and the BBC will find themselves without any support due to thier mightier than thou attitude.

I will be throwing a party on that day in support of choice and freedom.

If the BBC believe they are providing a world class service then they should put it to the test and become a subscription based service and if they were responcible with the money they recieve they would not be spending millions of pounds on changing thier logo (if i remember rightly they changed thier black BBC logo to a coloured BBC logo with a line underneath, then they changed it back) or spending millions of pounds paying for taxi's for thier staff.

Oh and this dribble about how TV would be so much worse without the BBC ... we will never know, cos the BBC were the only service available and quite frankly if everyone was on an level playing field, us the customer would be able to CHOOSE the best of the TV services available, like Sky or Virgin who both provide services that I want, not what im MADE to have or pay for.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I think the BBC are fantastic, I listen to their radio stations, use BBCi, watch their TV stations, and think it is wonderful they have no adverts.
It will be a sad day if it was any other way.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I think thats great but again why should i have to pay for your entertainment?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Agreed and some of the drama they show are 100 times better than anything Sky could produce

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Probably because murder's a criminal offence which you want to be found innocent of, whereas not having (or requiring) a TV licence would actually save you money, so why shouldn't you provide the evidence?

You don't have to let anybody into your house. Having said that, if you have a licence, why would it be a problem? Surely it would only be an issue if you didn't have a licence but were watching TV, which would mean you were breaking the law...

They do / did the same thing with road tax, but no-one complained. For that matter, certain tabloid newspapers do the same with peadophiles, but no-one complains. What's the difference?

As is said every bloomin' time this comes up, I refuse to believe that you don't use any BBC service. You might not watch the channels, but do you listen to the radio? Use the internet (clicked on any of the hunderdes of links to the BBC on here?). Bought any DVDs that may have been produced or distributed by the BBC? How about bought the Live Lounge album that Radio 1 released?

So two thirds of those surveyed were happy to continue to pay a fee for the BBC in some shape or form? That's pretty good - I wish everything that I did had a 66% chance of success :shrug:

What toot! I'd be interested to know how old you are - I'm fairly sure that we're of the same generation, and I have no inclination to drop my support for the world-class services that the BBC provide. Oh, and I don't believe for a moment that the BBC have a 'mightier than thou' attitude - as Chris said earlier, they aren't actually responsible for setting the licence fee anyway. They know that they have to maintain a certain level of output, or the government would be in a position where the charter wouldn't be renewed anyway...


Here, I have to say that I agree with you - it is all about choice. If you don't like paying the licence fee, you have the choice not to pay it - simply get rid of your TV (and anything else that may receive the signal), and sit back and enjoy your moral victory. Get yourself a copy of the Mail while you're at it - they do a good line in unresearched piffle as well :dozey:

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

We, the British public, may be paying over the odds for BBC via the license fee, but isn't thet the British way? Look around and you will find CDs, DVDs, PCs and equipment, consoles, etc., etc., etc. are always more expensive than in America. So how much extra are we paying for movies and American TV content via Sky and Virgin Media than the Americans pay for the same items via their equivalent feeds?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Yeah, but don't forget that, of the 10 - 20 decent American shows that we get over here, the Americans must have at least 300 crap ones ;)

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

lol you have a load of what seems like die hard anti sky people ( yep i know some of you arnt but it seems that way on here the last few days ) who want to see sky knocked down a peg or two as they don't like a dominant capitalist running their media then this lot who want to see an end to a independent media who are not dependent on and therefore easily influenced by big business


me i just want the channels i like watching ( oh and ready to fight any one who endangers Dr Who ;) )

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

If it wasnt for the BBC TV in this country would be absolutely terrible. ITV and BBC are the only providers capable of producing reasonable content. Sky just import crap, will not be missed at all.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Now out of all the issues that I thought would be raised in the aftermath of the debacle of Sky v VM I really hadn't thought we would get ANOTHER anti BBC Licence fee thread.

Seems all angles are being explored all right. :D

So I can't watch Bones tonight..However I notice Eureka is being shown on Sci Fi.I think I'll take another look at that and see if they actually show the episodes in the right order this time.Something Sky are notorious for not doing doing.They did it with Firefly after all.;)

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

i miss the channels already

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

No, you don't. Where did you get that idea? You do not have to prove that you don't need a TV licence. If you don't have one, they have to prove that you've been using a TV without one in order to get you convicted.

No, you don't. TVL can *ask* to come into your house; you are not obliged to allow them in.

If they come back with a copper, it's because they have a warrant, which means they have gone to the trouble of persuading a magistrate to give them one, which means they were able to show evidence that it is likely you are using a TV without a licence.

Simple statement of fact. If those three people don't receive TV signals, where's the problem? Were the people identified and subjected to public ridicule by the advert?

:confused: If you have a car, you pay road tax, whether you drive 1,000 or 25,000 miles a year and whether you drive on congested roads at the rush hour or not. What on earth are you banging on about using my car for? Your random and pointless misquote (thoroughly out of context as well) renders it meaningless. I really can't be bothered reiterating the point here; hopefully anyone who has got this far has read it already.

That's just ... wrong. They didn't just set standards back in the 1930s, they still do today. If you want an example of good quality BBC telly being produced today, you might enjoy a couple of hours in front of the CBeebies channel. My son tells me Nina and the Neurons is pretty good.

OK ... so you haven't studied statistics yet. Last time I looked in a maths text book, 65% support is (almost) 2:1 in favour. That's a pretty hefty majority. Furthermore, the question (assuming you quoted it properly) was 'would you still pay the fee', not 'do you want the service'. You can't conclude that the 35% who don't want to pay a subscription for the BBC would therefore not like to have the BBC service.

If you think Youtube is any kind of substitute for the BBC (or any other broadcast channel) then the day you take your rightful place at the top (assuming anybody is insane enough to put you there) is the day I emigrate. Do you have no standards at all?

Incidentally, ITV started in 1955 so everybody aged 52 and under grew up in the era of commercial TV. That would include most of the people currently running the BBC.

Oh why do I bother ...

Can you give me one compelling reason - just one - why the BBC should become a subscription service when its viewing figures would more than amply support it on advertising revenue? Do you see ITV thinking about going subscription-only? No. Do you see Channel 4 thinking about it? No. Quite the opposite actually, they have realised that unless you're broadcasting to quite a narrow niche audience, you are better off going free-to-air and surviving on ad revenue. That's why E4 and then FilmFour have come *off* subscription and are now free.

To suggest that the only alternative for the BBC is subscription is absolute fallacy. The preferred route would be to be a free-to-air commercial broadcaster, which would do nothing to help the rest of the industry because the BBC would be competing for a limited amount of available advertising spend. A commercial BBC would not be a subscription service, it would be a successful ad-funded service, much to the detriment of its competitors.

Or can you think of another reason why the main commercial broadcasters actually *support* the BBC's current funding model? No? Thought not. It's because they would rather compete with the Beeb for viewing figures alone and not have to worry whether Unilever is going to pay for adverts during Corrie or Eastenders.

As I said earlier ... anyone who doubts the likely results of a purely commercial TV environment should spend a while in the US, trying to find the decent programmes in amongst the hours and hours of unrelenting rubbish. Don't be fooled by the line-up of quality US shows you see on British TV. It is a very small selection of the whole and nowhere near enough to fill an entire schedule.

As for choice - you do have the choice. Use your remote control to choose whichever channel you want. Just as long as you keep paying your £2.50 a week to help keep the entire industry at the top of its game.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

C'mon Coggy, it has been a couple of months since the last one - we've been overdue by at least a month :disturbd:

Anyway, you know that they showed Firefly out of order just so we'd all go out and buy the boxset :D Mind you, I bet that dastardly BBC had something to do it ;)

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I cant believe the anti-TV licence views on this thread. We aren't paying over the odds for a TV licence. It is excellent value for money. Look at everything we get for £131.50. 8 TV channels + BBCi channels, 10 radio channels + 45 local and regional radio stations, bbc.co.uk which brings us news and sport reports which are second to none, online TV shows, entertainment reports, educational sites, public information sites, reviews, interviews and much much more. We also get outstanding TV shows such as Life on Mars, Walking With Dinosaurs, Little Britain, Dr Who, and imports like Band of Brothers, and Heroes coming soon. All of that advert free. You cant argue with it. How much would all that cost if you were to get it from Sky? It would be a damn site more that £11/month.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Barton71 - sorry I didn't make it clear enough; I put "may be paying over the odds" as in might or might not be. There has been a lot of discussion lately about the price increase of the license and my worry is that there are too many politicians and businessmen getting involved that don't need to be, which in my mind means more non-effective payments to "advisors", "co-producer manager executive project coordinators", (you get my drift).

OFCOM on the whole seem to do a reasonable job - cover what they need to and leave well alone when it is not part of their remit, so I would prefer to see a part of them, and only them, cover all things like the Virgin media/Sky issues, License fees, and the like; independent, fare and in the public's interest.

I agree that BBC do some great shows but I do not want to see License fee funds that go into making them reduced so that another unnecessary person has to be paid obscene amounts.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Personally i think the bbc should just show commercials like everyone else does

If people are quite prepared to tolerate ads on every other channel what difference will ads on the BBC really make.



They get their money we don't have to pay the tv license.


Mind you i don't pay it anyway.... yet (someone else in our hours pays ours ;) )

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I don't mind paying for the TV licence, but I strongly object to the way it is enforced - people without TVs are routinely harrassed and sent misleading, threatening letters demanding they pay; they don't seem to acknowledge that some people might not have a TV.

And I got the threatening letters even though I _did_ have a licence.

---------- Post added at 00:08 ---------- Previous post was at 00:03 ----------

The issue isn't whether it's good value or not, the issue is whether everyone with a TV should have to pay, whether they watch it or not.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

IMO - Yes we are, and no it's not. :)

Wow .... except I don't use 95% of those :dozey:

(Heroes btw is already on UK Sci-Fi).

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Exactly, if Virgin or sky were broadcasting in our homes and wouldnt let us remove the services and continues to charge us what do you think the reaction would be?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

But is it worth £11 a month just to have a few channels and radio stations that you 'sometimes' use that don't have adverts?


And they do have adverts. Normally for their own shows (not as bad as other channels, granted) but adverts all the same.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Yes, but not in the middle of the programmes, and just after the start of the programme (Heroes, Lost, 24, ER, all have 20 minutes of ads in a one hour programme).

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Absolutely, particularly when you take into account the fact that I pay 42 quid a month for Sky and it sometimes seems like it has more adverts than programmes...

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

The Adverts really get up my nose at times, I've noticed on some channels that there's an advert break in the middle of the opening titles, WTF?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

I appreciate that the American shows are the worst. That's why I never watch them at the time of airing, but download them later and watch them 'advert-free'.

Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of the BBC programming (Planet Earth, Dr Who, Life on Mars), there is no doubt they are the best quality broadcaster out there I love the fact that there are no adverts in their programmes, but I don't think it is worth £11 per month and I think I should have the choice as to whether or not I want to pay for them.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

But you do have the choice - if you don't want to pay it, just get rid of your TV :shrug:

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

That was a point I was trying to make earlier.

You buy a TV to enable you to watch many channels, not just the BBC. So when you pay for your TV license (i.e. the right to watch any channel), why does your money not go to all the channels, but only the BBC?

It seems you are paying for the right to watch BBC, not the right to watch your telly.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Erm, because all of the other channels get their revenue from other sources (namely advertising), which the BBC aren't allowed to do :shrug: As a result, the other companies would have an unfair advantage...

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Do you really think that the BBC actually want to be allowed to generate their revenue through advertising i.e. actually have to compete with other stations?

Or do you not think they are content just to get their regular pot of money and not have to worry about competing?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

But they do have to compete, in terms of quality - if they just broadcast crap all of the time, then they wouldn't have their charter renewed, and then we wouldn't have a BBC of the quality we have now.

I'm quite happy for the BBC to be funded by the licence fee - that's not to say I'd be as happy if the quality dropped but, at the moment, I have no problem with it :)

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Are they competing, or are they a public service provider?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

No-one can argue the quality of the BBC and its output, be it radio, tv or internet.

My point is, and has always been, that we should have the choice whether to pay or not (should be a subscription, not mandatory by law).

I just think that it is unfair, in this day and age when there are so many other broadcasters, to be forced to pay £11 per month to fund a single broadcaster whose programmes you may never watch.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

:banghead:

You do have the choice whether to pay or not!!!!

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Yes, yes, you do have a choice. You can pay for the BBC or you can give up your telly completely and not be allowed to watch any channel.


Not much of a choice really, is it?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Depends entirely on how much of a principle you want to take really, doesn't it?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Erm, indeed.


I feel that this debate has petered out somewhat. :D

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

One can but dream...

Don't worry though - there'll be another thread along in a while; this tends to rear it's ugly head every now and again ;)

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Nug, don't demean yourself (let nemmy do it); your head isn't that ugly.... :D

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Oh, it is - it's banging my head against walls in threads like this that's caused it :D


























Well, that and genetics anyway :disturbd:

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

There's nothing wrong with regular debate of a worthy topic. ;)

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Hey, regular's great - it's just a shame that it always involves a load of shi... ;)

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the result to change......:D

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Its not about that, its about the principle of being treated like a criminal on your own doorstep if you dont let them in, as i said before i do pay for a tv licence so this wont happen to me again but you just have to read some of the stories about how people have been treated by the licencing officers like mine below

Its an issue for the BBC for people who dont have a TV licence and dont use thier TV for recieveing broadcasted channels, the letters they send you are borderline threats. They assume you are watching a TV without a licence, they Assume you are breaking the law and until you prove otherwise they will continue to assume these things, thats my problem.

Road Tax is completly different, you pay road tax to allow your car to be on public property, its the fact that they assume that 3 people down burton street own a TV and use thier TV illegally to recieve broadcasted channels, there was no other reason to show the adverts, they tried to cause social problems within a community by using that community against itself based upon that assumption, the adverts were banned by the local council btw.

You should work for the BBC cos they think that too. Why is it so hard to believe that i dont use any BBC services? You make it sound like were in 1960's were the BBC is the only provider of media services, but just to clarify, i dont watch any BBC channels, I dont listen to any BBC radio stations, I dont use any websites thats related to the BBC or ever bought any DVDs that have been produced by the BBC. You see in regards to that i have a choice and id rather listen to my own music CDs, watch my own films on DVDs ive bought and visit the billions of other websites that are available, oh ive never even heard of this Live Lounge album until you pointed it out.

Surely success would be 100% wouldnt it? and your right 2/3rds are happy, so what about the other 3rd? they just arnt important?

Im 26, i think my generation and those younger are starting to use other avenues of entertainment that does not involve a tv, computers and new internet technology is creating a viable alternative to TV, the BBC recently tried to change the law regarding the TV licence and streaming media content, they wanted to be able to licence all streaming media in the UK, the government obviously refused.
Also recently the BBC were having a spaz attack because they didnt get the unreasonable rise in the fee that they wanted, im pleased they dont set thier own fee, if they did we would be paying a hell of a lot more than we do now.

Your absolutly right, it is about choice, the ultimate choice, i can lose my very enjoyable services i recieve from Virgin media (aka NTL) if i dont want to pay the BBC. Great Choice!!
Telling me to get rid of my £1000 TV because i dont want to recieve broadcasted channels is plain retarded, the BBC do not own my TV, i do, i paid sony alot of money for it, why should i get rid of it because i dont want to watch broadcasted channels, your statement is a pristine example of how the BBC think.
Im not going to write a 4000 word bibliographied essay on why i dont want to pay the BBC to recieve my paid services from Virgin, it really should be common sense to work out.

Note: You might be shocked by this but I agree that the BBC do provide a good standard of services, thats never been my problem its just i think other companies provide and equally good standard of service and i dont believe thats down to the BBC 'setting the standard' either, we as customers are forever demanding, if the TV was crap we stamp scream and shout about it, if it was as awful as is being stated on this thread noone would pay for it.

Oh Chris T, my point about your car... your using the BBC, i think thats great you should have that choice and your well within your rights to defend the BBC, but i dont use the BBC, i dont want to pay for something i dont use. Why would anyone want me to do that? I dont use my neighbours flat and i dont pay his rent, this is common sense.
We adopted an open market policy which everyone has to live with, yet the BBC is the only company that doesnt, its unfair to have a set of rules for everyone else but the BBC are exempt. Communists follow those kinds of rules.

To point out a personal experience i had regarding the BBC, about 3 years ago i was working away from home alot and thus because i wasnt at home i wasnt using my tv so i cancelled my TV licence, the letters i recieved were appauling, they were very threatening, I responded to thier threats and told them my situation but they just ignored me and kept sending threatening letters, about some 4 months later there was a knock at the door with this huge guy standing there asking me if i own a TV.
I said I did,
he said I have to buy a tv licence and that if I dont that I will be fined or even jailed,
I said I wasnt using my TV to watch broadcasted channels,
He then asked to inspect the TV set
(I want you to remember, I dont know this person, he is a complete stranger and he wasnt being nice about anything)
I refused
He put his foot on my door step preventing me from closing my door, leant in really close to my face and said if i didnt let him into my home he would return with more licencing officers like him.
I told him if he didnt remove his foot off my property that i would call the rest of my family like me.

At this point my father (who was luckily visiting me at the time and who was of equal size to this huge man stood at my door, not to mention hes a prison officer and had come straight from work to my house, still with his uniform on) came and took over the situation and told the licening officer to p**s off.
Since that day my opinion of the BBC was set in stone, id hate to think what would have happened if my dad wasnt there (im not very tall or big and quite frankly wouldnt hurt a fly)

Just to clear up, i try very hard to be very polite and be a friendly person with anyone i meet cos at 5ft 6in it would be just plain stupid of me to go about being an a***hole to everyone i meet.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

No. Soiling yourself because you like it and believing that you are Napoleon is a much clearer definition.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Just been on the news that the BBC have now made a deal with YouTube and are putting content on their site.
The BBC describe the deal as similar to the arrangement with UKTV which is that they receive revenue from the advertising!

Did someone mention a level playing field? I think not!

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Just read that about the BBC and Youtube.


A case of wanting your cake and eating it?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

the website and radio is worth the fee alone

dont like it? tough..move on and find something else to moan about please.

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

Ok.

What about we have a good moan at forum posters who try to stifle active debate on the forum?

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

anyhoo, back to the topic (slightly)

Re: Another Take on Lost Channels
 

How about starting another thread about it, rather than straying :notopic:
(mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa :D )